Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2141 | control, N = 1061 | treatment, N = 1081 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 212 | 51.21 ± 12.94 (23 - 75) | 50.47 ± 13.22 (23 - 75) | 51.93 ± 12.68 (28 - 73) | 0.413 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 214 | 0.557 | |||
f | 173 (81%) | 84 (79%) | 89 (82%) | ||
m | 41 (19%) | 22 (21%) | 19 (18%) | ||
occupation | 214 | 0.847 | |||
day_training | 5 (2.3%) | 2 (1.9%) | 3 (2.8%) | ||
full_time | 24 (11%) | 12 (11%) | 12 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 30 (14%) | 14 (13%) | 16 (15%) | ||
other | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
part_time | 40 (19%) | 22 (21%) | 18 (17%) | ||
retired | 51 (24%) | 23 (22%) | 28 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 4 (3.7%) | ||
shelter | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
t_and_e | 3 (1.4%) | 2 (1.9%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
unemploy | 48 (22%) | 26 (25%) | 22 (20%) | ||
marital | 214 | 0.981 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
divore | 24 (11%) | 13 (12%) | 11 (10%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (1.9%) | 2 (1.9%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
married | 68 (32%) | 32 (30%) | 36 (33%) | ||
none | 99 (46%) | 50 (47%) | 49 (45%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.4%) | 2 (1.9%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
widow | 15 (7.0%) | 7 (6.6%) | 8 (7.4%) | ||
edu | 214 | 0.538 | |||
bachelor | 47 (22%) | 20 (19%) | 27 (25%) | ||
diploma | 37 (17%) | 23 (22%) | 14 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.3%) | 4 (3.8%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (7.0%) | 8 (7.5%) | 7 (6.5%) | ||
primary | 18 (8.4%) | 8 (7.5%) | 10 (9.3%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 25 (12%) | 13 (12%) | 12 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 57 (27%) | 26 (25%) | 31 (29%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 10 (4.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 6 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 214 | 0.851 | |||
10001_12000 | 7 (3.3%) | 2 (1.9%) | 5 (4.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 11 (5.1%) | 4 (3.8%) | 7 (6.5%) | ||
14001_16000 | 10 (4.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 6 (5.6%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.3%) | 3 (2.8%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
18001_20000 | 10 (4.7%) | 7 (6.6%) | 3 (2.8%) | ||
20001_above | 37 (17%) | 21 (20%) | 16 (15%) | ||
2001_4000 | 32 (15%) | 15 (14%) | 17 (16%) | ||
4001_6000 | 27 (13%) | 12 (11%) | 15 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 20 (9.3%) | 11 (10%) | 9 (8.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 17 (7.9%) | 9 (8.5%) | 8 (7.4%) | ||
below_2000 | 38 (18%) | 18 (17%) | 20 (19%) | ||
medication | 214 | 191 (89%) | 94 (89%) | 97 (90%) | 0.789 |
onset_duration | 212 | 15.40 ± 10.90 (0 - 63) | 15.12 ± 10.99 (0 - 56) | 15.68 ± 10.86 (0 - 63) | 0.709 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 210 | 35.91 ± 14.59 (-18 - 72) | 35.25 ± 12.96 (10 - 67) | 36.56 ± 16.06 (-18 - 72) | 0.517 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2141 | control, N = 1061 | treatment, N = 1081 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 214 | 3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.968 |
recovery_stage_b | 214 | 17.91 ± 2.82 (8 - 24) | 18.05 ± 2.88 (8 - 24) | 17.78 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 0.486 |
ras_confidence | 214 | 29.77 ± 5.41 (9 - 45) | 29.57 ± 5.31 (14 - 42) | 29.96 ± 5.52 (9 - 45) | 0.593 |
ras_willingness | 214 | 11.64 ± 2.10 (3 - 15) | 11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15) | 11.61 ± 2.21 (3 - 15) | 0.839 |
ras_goal | 214 | 17.35 ± 3.25 (5 - 25) | 17.19 ± 3.17 (7 - 25) | 17.51 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.472 |
ras_reliance | 214 | 13.18 ± 2.87 (4 - 20) | 13.03 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.94 (4 - 20) | 0.438 |
ras_domination | 214 | 9.80 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 10.01 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 9.59 ± 2.39 (3 - 15) | 0.204 |
symptom | 214 | 30.28 ± 9.28 (14 - 56) | 30.28 ± 9.44 (14 - 55) | 30.28 ± 9.16 (14 - 56) | 0.997 |
slof_work | 214 | 22.17 ± 4.75 (10 - 30) | 22.30 ± 4.42 (12 - 30) | 22.05 ± 5.07 (10 - 30) | 0.695 |
slof_relationship | 214 | 25.14 ± 5.75 (9 - 35) | 24.64 ± 5.85 (9 - 35) | 25.64 ± 5.64 (11 - 35) | 0.206 |
satisfaction | 214 | 20.21 ± 7.02 (5 - 35) | 19.54 ± 6.87 (5 - 34) | 20.88 ± 7.14 (5 - 35) | 0.163 |
mhc_emotional | 214 | 10.71 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 10.61 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 10.81 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 0.694 |
mhc_social | 214 | 15.20 ± 5.78 (5 - 30) | 14.97 ± 5.84 (5 - 30) | 15.43 ± 5.75 (5 - 30) | 0.567 |
mhc_psychological | 214 | 21.77 ± 6.67 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.56 (7 - 36) | 21.99 ± 6.81 (6 - 36) | 0.628 |
resilisnce | 214 | 16.56 ± 4.59 (6 - 30) | 16.01 ± 4.28 (6 - 30) | 17.09 ± 4.83 (6 - 30) | 0.084 |
social_provision | 214 | 13.57 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 13.20 ± 2.69 (5 - 20) | 13.94 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 0.051 |
els_value_living | 214 | 16.96 ± 3.08 (5 - 25) | 16.80 ± 3.02 (6 - 24) | 17.12 ± 3.15 (5 - 25) | 0.451 |
els_life_fulfill | 214 | 12.70 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 12.37 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 13.03 ± 3.26 (4 - 20) | 0.140 |
els | 214 | 29.66 ± 5.81 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 5.71 (11 - 44) | 30.15 ± 5.89 (9 - 45) | 0.219 |
social_connect | 214 | 26.59 ± 9.07 (8 - 48) | 26.92 ± 8.89 (8 - 48) | 26.28 ± 9.28 (8 - 48) | 0.608 |
shs_agency | 214 | 14.31 ± 4.96 (3 - 24) | 13.74 ± 4.79 (3 - 23) | 14.88 ± 5.09 (3 - 24) | 0.092 |
shs_pathway | 214 | 15.88 ± 4.13 (3 - 24) | 15.42 ± 4.24 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.101 |
shs | 214 | 30.20 ± 8.71 (6 - 48) | 29.15 ± 8.68 (6 - 46) | 31.22 ± 8.66 (7 - 48) | 0.082 |
esteem | 214 | 12.69 ± 1.59 (9 - 20) | 12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.73 ± 1.56 (10 - 20) | 0.712 |
mlq_search | 214 | 14.76 ± 3.48 (3 - 21) | 14.42 ± 3.42 (4 - 21) | 15.09 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 0.161 |
mlq_presence | 214 | 13.38 ± 4.29 (3 - 21) | 13.25 ± 4.09 (3 - 21) | 13.52 ± 4.50 (3 - 21) | 0.643 |
mlq | 214 | 28.14 ± 6.93 (6 - 42) | 27.67 ± 6.65 (7 - 40) | 28.61 ± 7.19 (6 - 42) | 0.322 |
empower | 214 | 19.22 ± 4.38 (6 - 30) | 18.89 ± 4.24 (9 - 30) | 19.55 ± 4.51 (6 - 30) | 0.272 |
ismi_resistance | 214 | 14.34 ± 2.62 (5 - 20) | 14.34 ± 2.36 (6 - 20) | 14.33 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 0.986 |
ismi_discrimation | 214 | 11.71 ± 3.04 (5 - 20) | 11.84 ± 2.92 (5 - 20) | 11.57 ± 3.16 (5 - 20) | 0.524 |
sss_affective | 214 | 10.30 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.21 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 10.39 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.715 |
sss_behavior | 214 | 9.94 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 10.06 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 9.82 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.648 |
sss_cognitive | 214 | 8.63 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 8.49 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 8.77 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 0.587 |
sss | 214 | 28.87 ± 10.35 (9 - 54) | 28.75 ± 10.19 (9 - 54) | 28.98 ± 10.56 (9 - 54) | 0.873 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.13 | 0.119 | 2.90, 3.36 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.001 | 0.167 | -0.328, 0.327 | 0.997 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.078 | 0.159 | -0.234, 0.389 | 0.626 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.229 | 0.233 | -0.228, 0.686 | 0.328 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.283 | 17.5, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.257 | 0.400 | -1.04, 0.526 | 0.521 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.274 | 0.314 | -0.889, 0.341 | 0.384 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.898 | 0.462 | -0.009, 1.80 | 0.054 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.533 | 28.5, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.389 | 0.752 | -1.09, 1.86 | 0.606 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.565 | 0.506 | -0.426, 1.56 | 0.266 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.68 | 0.746 | 0.214, 3.14 | 0.026 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.202 | 11.3, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.043 | 0.285 | -0.601, 0.515 | 0.879 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.018 | 0.215 | -0.403, 0.439 | 0.933 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.533 | 0.317 | -0.087, 1.15 | 0.095 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.319 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.332 | 0.450 | -0.551, 1.21 | 0.462 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.169 | 0.322 | -0.461, 0.800 | 0.599 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.890 | 0.475 | -0.041, 1.82 | 0.063 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.284 | 12.5, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.315 | 0.400 | -0.469, 1.10 | 0.431 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.366 | 0.278 | -0.180, 0.911 | 0.191 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.545 | 0.411 | -0.260, 1.35 | 0.187 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.234 | 9.55, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.413 | 0.329 | -1.06, 0.233 | 0.211 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.084 | 0.270 | -0.612, 0.444 | 0.755 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.16 | 0.397 | 0.378, 1.93 | 0.004 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.3 | 0.898 | 28.5, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.102 | 1.266 | -2.58, 2.38 | 0.936 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.21 | 0.733 | -2.65, 0.224 | 0.100 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.52 | 1.084 | -3.64, 0.608 | 0.164 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.459 | 21.4, 23.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.216 | 0.647 | -1.48, 1.05 | 0.739 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.077 | 0.436 | -0.778, 0.931 | 0.861 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.493 | 0.644 | -0.769, 1.75 | 0.445 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.6 | 0.559 | 23.5, 25.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.04 | 0.789 | -0.509, 2.58 | 0.190 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.069 | 0.542 | -1.13, 0.994 | 0.899 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.661 | 0.800 | -0.907, 2.23 | 0.410 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.5 | 0.685 | 18.2, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.35 | 0.966 | -0.544, 3.24 | 0.164 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.841 | 0.636 | -0.406, 2.09 | 0.188 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.999 | 0.939 | -0.842, 2.84 | 0.290 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.365 | 9.90, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.216 | 0.515 | -0.793, 1.23 | 0.675 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.351 | 0.312 | -0.260, 0.961 | 0.262 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.205 | 0.460 | -0.698, 1.11 | 0.658 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.579 | 13.8, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.473 | 0.816 | -1.13, 2.07 | 0.563 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.782 | 0.551 | -0.298, 1.86 | 0.158 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.266 | 0.813 | -1.33, 1.86 | 0.744 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 0.670 | 20.2, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.492 | 0.944 | -1.36, 2.34 | 0.603 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.960 | 0.602 | -0.220, 2.14 | 0.113 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.113 | 0.889 | -1.63, 1.86 | 0.899 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.436 | 15.2, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.615 | -0.151, 2.26 | 0.088 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.653 | 0.454 | -0.237, 1.54 | 0.153 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.05 | 0.670 | -0.261, 2.36 | 0.119 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.277 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.738 | 0.391 | -0.028, 1.51 | 0.060 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.192 | 0.279 | -0.740, 0.356 | 0.493 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.545 | 0.412 | -0.263, 1.35 | 0.188 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.306 | 16.2, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.334 | 0.432 | -0.511, 1.18 | 0.439 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.207 | 0.313 | -0.406, 0.820 | 0.510 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.606 | 0.461 | -0.298, 1.51 | 0.191 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.316 | 11.7, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.668 | 0.445 | -0.205, 1.54 | 0.135 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.226 | 0.298 | -0.357, 0.810 | 0.449 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.511 | 0.440 | -0.351, 1.37 | 0.248 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.573 | 28.0, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 0.808 | -0.580, 2.59 | 0.215 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.461 | 0.527 | -0.573, 1.49 | 0.384 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.06 | 0.779 | -0.470, 2.58 | 0.178 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 0.893 | 25.2, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.683 | 1.259 | -3.15, 1.78 | 0.588 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.334 | 0.793 | -1.22, 1.89 | 0.674 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.76 | 1.172 | -6.06, -1.47 | 0.002 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.483 | 12.8, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.14 | 0.682 | -0.194, 2.48 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.540 | 0.420 | -0.284, 1.36 | 0.202 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.524 | 0.621 | -0.693, 1.74 | 0.400 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.395 | 14.6, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.938 | 0.557 | -0.154, 2.03 | 0.094 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.586 | 0.376 | -0.151, 1.32 | 0.122 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.317 | 0.555 | -0.771, 1.41 | 0.569 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.839 | 27.5, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.08 | 1.184 | -0.239, 4.40 | 0.080 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 0.740 | -0.329, 2.57 | 0.132 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.833 | 1.093 | -1.31, 2.98 | 0.447 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.149 | 12.4, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.068 | 0.211 | -0.344, 0.481 | 0.746 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.017 | 0.200 | -0.409, 0.376 | 0.934 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.033 | 0.294 | -0.544, 0.609 | 0.912 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.337 | 13.8, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.709 | 0.475 | -0.222, 1.64 | 0.137 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.692 | 0.392 | -0.077, 1.46 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.676 | 0.577 | -1.81, 0.456 | 0.244 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.412 | 12.4, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.306 | 0.581 | -0.832, 1.44 | 0.599 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.778 | 0.444 | -0.091, 1.65 | 0.082 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.052 | 0.654 | -1.23, 1.33 | 0.937 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.675 | 26.3, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.02 | 0.952 | -0.849, 2.88 | 0.287 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.47 | 0.756 | -0.013, 2.95 | 0.054 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.609 | 1.114 | -2.79, 1.57 | 0.585 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.432 | 18.0, 19.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.671 | 0.610 | -0.524, 1.87 | 0.272 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.990 | 0.423 | 0.162, 1.82 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.311 | 0.623 | -1.53, 0.911 | 0.618 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.247 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.023 | 0.349 | -0.661, 0.706 | 0.948 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.335 | 0.291 | -0.235, 0.905 | 0.251 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.577 | 0.428 | -0.263, 1.42 | 0.180 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.299 | 11.3, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.255 | 0.421 | -1.08, 0.570 | 0.545 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.464 | 0.355 | -1.16, 0.232 | 0.194 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.407 | 0.523 | -1.43, 0.618 | 0.438 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.354 | 9.51, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.168 | 0.499 | -0.810, 1.15 | 0.736 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.319 | 0.311 | -0.928, 0.290 | 0.307 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.902 | 0.459 | -1.80, -0.003 | 0.052 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.356 | 9.36, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.250 | 0.502 | -1.23, 0.734 | 0.619 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.429 | 0.328 | -1.07, 0.215 | 0.194 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.400 | 0.485 | -1.35, 0.551 | 0.411 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.49 | 0.355 | 7.80, 9.19 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.253 | 0.500 | -0.728, 1.23 | 0.614 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.318 | 0.341 | -0.986, 0.350 | 0.353 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.702 | 0.503 | -1.69, 0.283 | 0.165 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.8 | 0.999 | 26.8, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.169 | 1.410 | -2.59, 2.93 | 0.905 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.06 | 0.827 | -2.68, 0.564 | 0.204 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.92 | 1.221 | -4.32, 0.471 | 0.118 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.13 (95% CI [2.90, 3.36], t(320) = 26.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.45e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33], t(320) = -3.26e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = -4.49e-04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39], t(320) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.69], t(320) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.05 (95% CI [17.49, 18.60], t(320) = 63.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.53], t(320) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.34], t(320) = -0.87, p = 0.382; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-8.54e-03, 1.80], t(320) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.91e-03, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.57 (95% CI [28.52, 30.61], t(320) = 55.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.86], t(320) = 0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.56], t(320) = 1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [0.21, 3.14], t(320) = 2.25, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.04, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.27, 12.07], t(320) = 57.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.51], t(320) = -0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.44], t(320) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 8.67e-03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.15], t(320) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.19 (95% CI [16.56, 17.81], t(320) = 53.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.21], t(320) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.80], t(320) = 0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.82], t(320) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.47, 13.58], t(320) = 45.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.10], t(320) = 0.79, p = 0.431; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.91], t(320) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.35], t(320) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.55, 10.47], t(320) = 42.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.23], t(320) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.44], t(320) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.38, 1.93], t(320) = 2.91, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.16, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.52, 32.04], t(320) = 33.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.58, 2.38], t(320) = -0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.65, 0.22], t(320) = -1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-3.64, 0.61], t(320) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.30 (95% CI [21.40, 23.20], t(320) = 48.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.05], t(320) = -0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.93], t(320) = 0.18, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.75], t(320) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.64 (95% CI [23.55, 25.74], t(320) = 44.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.58], t(320) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.99], t(320) = -0.13, p = 0.899; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.23], t(320) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [18.20, 20.88], t(320) = 28.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.54, 3.24], t(320) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.09], t(320) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.84], t(320) = 1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.90, 11.33], t(320) = 29.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.23], t(320) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.96], t(320) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.11], t(320) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.84, 16.11], t(320) = 25.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.07], t(320) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.86], t(320) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.86], t(320) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.23, 22.86], t(320) = 32.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.34], t(320) = 0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.14], t(320) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.86], t(320) = 0.13, p = 0.899; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.16, 16.86], t(320) = 36.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.26], t(320) = 1.71, p = 0.086; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.54], t(320) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 2.36], t(320) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.65, 13.74], t(320) = 47.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.51], t(320) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-9.67e-03, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.36], t(320) = -0.69, p = 0.492; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.35], t(320) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.80 (95% CI [16.20, 17.40], t(320) = 54.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(320) = 0.77, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.82], t(320) = 0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.51], t(320) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.75, 12.99], t(320) = 39.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.54], t(320) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.81], t(320) = 0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.37], t(320) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.05, 30.29], t(320) = 50.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.59], t(320) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.49], t(320) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.58], t(320) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.92 (95% CI [25.17, 28.66], t(320) = 30.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.15, 1.78], t(320) = -0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.89], t(320) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.76, 95% CI [-6.06, -1.47], t(320) = -3.21, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.79, 14.68], t(320) = 28.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 2.48], t(320) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.36], t(320) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.74], t(320) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.42 (95% CI [14.64, 16.19], t(320) = 39.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.03], t(320) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.32], t(320) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.41], t(320) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.15 (95% CI [27.51, 30.80], t(320) = 34.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 4.40], t(320) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.57], t(320) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.98], t(320) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.95e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.36, 12.94], t(320) = 84.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.48], t(320) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.38], t(320) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.61], t(320) = 0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.76, 15.09], t(320) = 42.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.64], t(320) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.46], t(320) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.81, 0.46], t(320) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.44, 14.05], t(320) = 32.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.44], t(320) = 0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.65], t(320) = 1.75, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.33], t(320) = 0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.67 (95% CI [26.35, 28.99], t(320) = 41.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.88], t(320) = 1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.01, 2.95], t(320) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.82e-03, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.79, 1.57], t(320) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.89 (95% CI [18.04, 19.73], t(320) = 43.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.87], t(320) = 1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [0.16, 1.82], t(320) = 2.34, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.04, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.91], t(320) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.34 (95% CI [13.85, 14.82], t(320) = 57.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.71], t(320) = 0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 8.86e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.91], t(320) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.42], t(320) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.25, 12.43], t(320) = 39.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.57], t(320) = -0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.23], t(320) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.62], t(320) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.51, 10.90], t(320) = 28.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.15], t(320) = 0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.29], t(320) = -1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.80, -2.81e-03], t(320) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.49, -7.67e-04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.36, 10.75], t(320) = 28.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.23, 0.73], t(320) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.22], t(320) = -1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.55], t(320) = -0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.49 (95% CI [7.80, 9.19], t(320) = 23.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.23], t(320) = 0.51, p = 0.613; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.35], t(320) = -0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.28], t(320) = -1.40, p = 0.163; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.75 (95% CI [26.80, 30.71], t(320) = 28.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.59, 2.93], t(320) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.56], t(320) = -1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-4.32, 0.47], t(320) = -1.57, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,039.951 | 1,051.312 | -516.976 | 1,033.951 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,042.354 | 1,065.075 | -515.177 | 1,030.354 | 3.597 | 3 | 0.308 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,575.416 | 1,586.776 | -784.708 | 1,569.416 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,577.262 | 1,599.983 | -782.631 | 1,565.262 | 4.154 | 3 | 0.245 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,971.368 | 1,982.729 | -982.684 | 1,965.368 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,958.955 | 1,981.677 | -973.478 | 1,946.955 | 18.412 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,348.282 | 1,359.643 | -671.141 | 1,342.282 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,348.514 | 1,371.236 | -668.257 | 1,336.514 | 5.767 | 3 | 0.123 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,641.757 | 1,653.117 | -817.878 | 1,635.757 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,636.837 | 1,659.558 | -812.418 | 1,624.837 | 10.920 | 3 | 0.012 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,560.143 | 1,571.504 | -777.071 | 1,554.143 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,554.252 | 1,576.973 | -771.126 | 1,542.252 | 11.891 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,466.246 | 1,477.606 | -730.123 | 1,460.246 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,458.916 | 1,481.638 | -723.458 | 1,446.916 | 13.329 | 3 | 0.004 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,275.813 | 2,287.174 | -1,134.906 | 2,269.813 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,267.900 | 2,290.622 | -1,127.950 | 2,255.900 | 13.913 | 3 | 0.003 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,856.929 | 1,868.289 | -925.464 | 1,850.929 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,861.412 | 1,884.134 | -924.706 | 1,849.412 | 1.516 | 3 | 0.679 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,992.254 | 2,003.614 | -993.127 | 1,986.254 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,994.636 | 2,017.357 | -991.318 | 1,982.636 | 3.618 | 3 | 0.306 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,123.429 | 2,134.790 | -1,058.715 | 2,117.429 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,117.867 | 2,140.588 | -1,052.933 | 2,105.867 | 11.562 | 3 | 0.009 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,688.882 | 1,700.243 | -841.441 | 1,682.882 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,690.661 | 1,713.382 | -839.330 | 1,678.661 | 4.222 | 3 | 0.238 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,012.510 | 2,023.871 | -1,003.255 | 2,006.510 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,013.088 | 2,035.810 | -1,000.544 | 2,001.088 | 5.422 | 3 | 0.143 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,096.078 | 2,107.439 | -1,045.039 | 2,090.078 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,096.615 | 2,119.337 | -1,042.308 | 2,084.615 | 5.463 | 3 | 0.141 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,858.921 | 1,870.281 | -926.460 | 1,852.921 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,846.336 | 1,869.057 | -917.168 | 1,834.336 | 18.585 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,546.566 | 1,557.927 | -770.283 | 1,540.566 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,545.093 | 1,567.815 | -766.547 | 1,533.093 | 7.473 | 3 | 0.058 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,613.574 | 1,624.934 | -803.787 | 1,607.574 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,612.022 | 1,634.743 | -800.011 | 1,600.022 | 7.552 | 3 | 0.056 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,619.435 | 1,630.796 | -806.718 | 1,613.435 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,616.296 | 1,639.017 | -802.148 | 1,604.296 | 9.139 | 3 | 0.027 |
els | null | 3 | 2,003.998 | 2,015.358 | -998.999 | 1,997.998 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,999.699 | 2,022.420 | -993.849 | 1,987.699 | 10.299 | 3 | 0.016 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,293.079 | 2,304.440 | -1,143.540 | 2,287.079 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,281.834 | 2,304.556 | -1,134.917 | 2,269.834 | 17.245 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,881.871 | 1,893.232 | -937.935 | 1,875.871 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,877.349 | 1,900.070 | -932.674 | 1,865.349 | 10.522 | 3 | 0.015 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,769.176 | 1,780.537 | -881.588 | 1,763.176 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,764.500 | 1,787.221 | -876.250 | 1,752.500 | 10.676 | 3 | 0.014 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,245.821 | 2,257.182 | -1,119.910 | 2,239.821 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,239.943 | 2,262.665 | -1,113.972 | 2,227.943 | 11.878 | 3 | 0.008 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,187.202 | 1,198.563 | -590.601 | 1,181.202 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,193.019 | 1,215.741 | -590.510 | 1,181.019 | 0.183 | 3 | 0.980 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,698.128 | 1,709.489 | -846.064 | 1,692.128 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,699.761 | 1,722.482 | -843.880 | 1,687.761 | 4.367 | 3 | 0.224 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,816.163 | 1,827.524 | -905.082 | 1,810.163 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,815.891 | 1,838.612 | -901.946 | 1,803.891 | 6.272 | 3 | 0.099 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,144.869 | 2,156.229 | -1,069.434 | 2,138.869 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,145.248 | 2,167.969 | -1,066.624 | 2,133.248 | 5.621 | 3 | 0.132 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,830.929 | 1,842.289 | -912.464 | 1,824.929 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,828.517 | 1,851.238 | -908.258 | 1,816.517 | 8.412 | 3 | 0.038 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,503.694 | 1,515.054 | -748.847 | 1,497.694 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,499.782 | 1,522.504 | -743.891 | 1,487.782 | 9.911 | 3 | 0.019 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,626.490 | 1,637.851 | -810.245 | 1,620.490 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,624.865 | 1,647.587 | -806.433 | 1,612.865 | 7.625 | 3 | 0.054 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,683.849 | 1,695.209 | -838.924 | 1,677.849 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,675.997 | 1,698.719 | -831.999 | 1,663.997 | 13.851 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,691.578 | 1,702.939 | -842.789 | 1,685.578 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,690.025 | 1,712.747 | -839.013 | 1,678.025 | 7.553 | 3 | 0.056 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,698.265 | 1,709.625 | -846.132 | 1,692.265 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,695.781 | 1,718.503 | -841.891 | 1,683.781 | 8.483 | 3 | 0.037 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,346.864 | 2,358.225 | -1,170.432 | 2,340.864 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,340.432 | 2,363.153 | -1,164.216 | 2,328.432 | 12.433 | 3 | 0.006 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 106 | 3.13 ± 1.22 | 108 | 3.13 ± 1.22 | 0.997 | 0.001 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 61 | 3.21 ± 1.18 | -0.083 | 51 | 3.44 ± 1.17 | -0.327 | 0.306 | -0.243 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 106 | 18.05 ± 2.92 | 108 | 17.79 ± 2.93 | 0.521 | 0.142 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 61 | 17.77 ± 2.68 | 0.152 | 51 | 18.41 ± 2.62 | -0.345 | 0.202 | -0.354 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 106 | 29.57 ± 5.49 | 108 | 29.95 ± 5.51 | 0.606 | -0.135 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 61 | 30.13 ± 4.84 | -0.196 | 51 | 32.20 ± 4.68 | -0.779 | 0.023 | -0.718 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 106 | 11.67 ± 2.08 | 108 | 11.63 ± 2.09 | 0.879 | 0.035 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 61 | 11.69 ± 1.89 | -0.015 | 51 | 12.18 ± 1.84 | -0.447 | 0.166 | -0.397 |
ras_goal | 1st | 106 | 17.19 ± 3.29 | 108 | 17.52 ± 3.30 | 0.462 | -0.181 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 61 | 17.36 ± 2.94 | -0.092 | 51 | 18.58 ± 2.86 | -0.576 | 0.027 | -0.664 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 106 | 13.03 ± 2.92 | 108 | 13.34 ± 2.93 | 0.431 | -0.199 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 61 | 13.39 ± 2.60 | -0.230 | 51 | 14.25 ± 2.51 | -0.574 | 0.077 | -0.542 |
ras_domination | 1st | 106 | 10.01 ± 2.40 | 108 | 9.60 ± 2.41 | 0.211 | 0.265 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 61 | 9.93 ± 2.23 | 0.054 | 51 | 10.67 ± 2.19 | -0.687 | 0.077 | -0.477 |
symptom | 1st | 106 | 30.28 ± 9.24 | 108 | 30.18 ± 9.28 | 0.936 | 0.025 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 61 | 29.07 ± 7.89 | 0.293 | 51 | 27.45 ± 7.54 | 0.660 | 0.269 | 0.391 |
slof_work | 1st | 106 | 22.30 ± 4.72 | 108 | 22.09 ± 4.74 | 0.739 | 0.087 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 61 | 22.38 ± 4.17 | -0.031 | 51 | 22.66 ± 4.03 | -0.229 | 0.722 | -0.112 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 106 | 24.64 ± 5.76 | 108 | 25.68 ± 5.78 | 0.190 | -0.336 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 61 | 24.57 ± 5.11 | 0.022 | 51 | 26.27 ± 4.94 | -0.192 | 0.075 | -0.550 |
satisfaction | 1st | 106 | 19.54 ± 7.05 | 108 | 20.89 ± 7.08 | 0.164 | -0.373 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 61 | 20.38 ± 6.19 | -0.233 | 51 | 22.73 ± 5.97 | -0.509 | 0.042 | -0.649 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 106 | 10.61 ± 3.76 | 108 | 10.83 ± 3.78 | 0.675 | -0.123 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 61 | 10.96 ± 3.24 | -0.199 | 51 | 11.39 ± 3.11 | -0.315 | 0.484 | -0.239 |
mhc_social | 1st | 106 | 14.97 ± 5.96 | 108 | 15.44 ± 5.98 | 0.563 | -0.151 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 61 | 15.75 ± 5.26 | -0.249 | 51 | 16.49 ± 5.08 | -0.334 | 0.451 | -0.236 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 106 | 21.55 ± 6.89 | 108 | 22.04 ± 6.92 | 0.603 | -0.144 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 61 | 22.51 ± 6.01 | -0.281 | 51 | 23.11 ± 5.78 | -0.314 | 0.588 | -0.177 |
resilisnce | 1st | 106 | 16.01 ± 4.49 | 108 | 17.06 ± 4.50 | 0.088 | -0.405 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 61 | 16.66 ± 4.05 | -0.251 | 51 | 18.77 ± 3.94 | -0.655 | 0.006 | -0.809 |
social_provision | 1st | 106 | 13.20 ± 2.86 | 108 | 13.94 ± 2.87 | 0.060 | -0.462 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 61 | 13.01 ± 2.56 | 0.120 | 51 | 14.29 ± 2.48 | -0.221 | 0.008 | -0.804 |
els_value_living | 1st | 106 | 16.80 ± 3.15 | 108 | 17.14 ± 3.16 | 0.439 | -0.187 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 61 | 17.01 ± 2.83 | -0.115 | 51 | 17.95 ± 2.75 | -0.454 | 0.076 | -0.525 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 106 | 12.37 ± 3.25 | 108 | 13.04 ± 3.26 | 0.135 | -0.394 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 61 | 12.59 ± 2.86 | -0.134 | 51 | 13.77 ± 2.77 | -0.435 | 0.028 | -0.696 |
els | 1st | 106 | 29.17 ± 5.90 | 108 | 30.17 ± 5.92 | 0.215 | -0.335 | ||
els | 2nd | 61 | 29.63 ± 5.17 | -0.154 | 51 | 31.69 ± 4.98 | -0.506 | 0.033 | -0.687 |
social_connect | 1st | 106 | 26.92 ± 9.19 | 108 | 26.23 ± 9.23 | 0.588 | 0.152 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 61 | 27.25 ± 7.99 | -0.074 | 51 | 22.80 ± 7.68 | 0.762 | 0.003 | 0.989 |
shs_agency | 1st | 106 | 13.74 ± 4.98 | 108 | 14.88 ± 5.00 | 0.095 | -0.480 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 61 | 14.28 ± 4.31 | -0.227 | 51 | 15.94 ± 4.13 | -0.447 | 0.038 | -0.700 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 106 | 15.42 ± 4.07 | 108 | 16.35 ± 4.08 | 0.094 | -0.438 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 61 | 16.00 ± 3.59 | -0.274 | 51 | 17.26 ± 3.47 | -0.422 | 0.062 | -0.586 |
shs | 1st | 106 | 29.15 ± 8.64 | 108 | 31.23 ± 8.68 | 0.080 | -0.496 | ||
shs | 2nd | 61 | 30.27 ± 7.50 | -0.267 | 51 | 33.19 ± 7.20 | -0.466 | 0.037 | -0.695 |
esteem | 1st | 106 | 12.65 ± 1.54 | 108 | 12.72 ± 1.54 | 0.746 | -0.058 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 61 | 12.63 ± 1.49 | 0.014 | 51 | 12.74 ± 1.47 | -0.014 | 0.719 | -0.085 |
mlq_search | 1st | 106 | 14.42 ± 3.47 | 108 | 15.13 ± 3.48 | 0.137 | -0.312 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 61 | 15.12 ± 3.23 | -0.305 | 51 | 15.15 ± 3.17 | -0.007 | 0.956 | -0.015 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 106 | 13.25 ± 4.24 | 108 | 13.55 ± 4.26 | 0.599 | -0.120 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 61 | 14.02 ± 3.86 | -0.305 | 51 | 14.38 ± 3.77 | -0.326 | 0.621 | -0.141 |
mlq | 1st | 106 | 27.67 ± 6.95 | 108 | 28.69 ± 6.97 | 0.287 | -0.233 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 61 | 29.14 ± 6.39 | -0.337 | 51 | 29.55 ± 6.26 | -0.197 | 0.734 | -0.093 |
empower | 1st | 106 | 18.89 ± 4.45 | 108 | 19.56 ± 4.47 | 0.272 | -0.279 | ||
empower | 2nd | 61 | 19.88 ± 3.96 | -0.411 | 51 | 20.24 ± 3.83 | -0.282 | 0.626 | -0.149 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 106 | 14.34 ± 2.55 | 108 | 14.36 ± 2.55 | 0.948 | -0.013 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 61 | 14.67 ± 2.37 | -0.199 | 51 | 15.27 ± 2.33 | -0.540 | 0.180 | -0.355 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 106 | 11.84 ± 3.08 | 108 | 11.58 ± 3.09 | 0.545 | 0.124 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 61 | 11.38 ± 2.88 | 0.225 | 51 | 10.71 ± 2.83 | 0.422 | 0.222 | 0.321 |
sss_affective | 1st | 106 | 10.21 ± 3.64 | 108 | 10.38 ± 3.66 | 0.736 | -0.096 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 61 | 9.89 ± 3.16 | 0.181 | 51 | 9.15 ± 3.03 | 0.694 | 0.212 | 0.417 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 106 | 10.06 ± 3.66 | 108 | 9.81 ± 3.68 | 0.619 | 0.134 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 61 | 9.63 ± 3.21 | 0.230 | 51 | 8.98 ± 3.10 | 0.444 | 0.278 | 0.348 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 106 | 8.49 ± 3.65 | 108 | 8.74 ± 3.67 | 0.614 | -0.130 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 61 | 8.17 ± 3.23 | 0.164 | 51 | 7.72 ± 3.12 | 0.526 | 0.456 | 0.231 |
sss | 1st | 106 | 28.75 ± 10.29 | 108 | 28.92 ± 10.33 | 0.905 | -0.036 | ||
sss | 2nd | 61 | 27.70 ± 8.81 | 0.226 | 51 | 25.94 ± 8.43 | 0.638 | 0.283 | 0.376 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(289.37) = -0.00, p = 0.997, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.33)
2st
t(319.68) = 1.02, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.67)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(260.45) = -0.64, p = 0.521, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.53)
2st
t(321.79) = 1.28, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.63)
ras_confidence
1st
t(245.12) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.87)
2st
t(320.53) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.84)
ras_willingness
1st
t(255.86) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.52)
2st
t(322.00) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.18)
ras_goal
1st
t(250.39) = 0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.22)
2st
t(321.74) = 2.22, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.14 to 2.30)
ras_reliance
1st
t(247.97) = 0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.10)
2st
t(321.33) = 1.78, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.81)
ras_domination
1st
t(265.66) = -1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.24)
2st
t(321.34) = 1.77, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.57)
symptom
1st
t(235.20) = -0.08, p = 0.936, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.60 to 2.39)
2st
t(313.04) = -1.11, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-4.50 to 1.26)
slof_work
1st
t(245.36) = -0.33, p = 0.739, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.06)
2st
t(320.61) = 0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.80)
slof_relationship
1st
t(246.91) = 1.31, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.59)
2st
t(321.08) = 1.78, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.17 to 3.57)
satisfaction
1st
t(243.56) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.25)
2st
t(319.90) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.08 to 4.61)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(237.70) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.23)
2st
t(315.85) = 0.70, p = 0.484, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.60)
mhc_social
1st
t(245.41) = 0.58, p = 0.563, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.13 to 2.08)
2st
t(320.63) = 0.75, p = 0.451, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.19 to 2.67)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(241.16) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.35)
2st
t(318.60) = 0.54, p = 0.588, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.80)
resilisnce
1st
t(253.69) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.26)
2st
t(321.98) = 2.78, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.62 to 3.60)
social_provision
1st
t(250.40) = 1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.51)
2st
t(321.74) = 2.69, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (0.34 to 2.22)
els_value_living
1st
t(251.77) = 0.77, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.18)
2st
t(321.87) = 1.78, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.98)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(244.71) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.55)
2st
t(320.38) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.23)
els
1st
t(242.87) = 1.24, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.59)
2st
t(319.57) = 2.14, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.17 to 3.95)
social_connect
1st
t(240.34) = -0.54, p = 0.588, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.16 to 1.80)
2st
t(318.05) = -3.00, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-7.37 to -1.53)
shs_agency
1st
t(238.90) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.49)
2st
t(316.94) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.09 to 3.24)
shs_pathway
1st
t(245.44) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.04)
2st
t(320.64) = 1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.57)
shs
1st
t(239.83) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.25 to 4.41)
2st
t(317.68) = 2.09, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.17 to 5.65)
esteem
1st
t(289.46) = 0.32, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.48)
2st
t(319.67) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.65)
mlq_search
1st
t(266.68) = 1.49, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.65)
2st
t(321.24) = 0.06, p = 0.956, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.23)
mlq_presence
1st
t(257.23) = 0.53, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.45)
2st
t(321.96) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.78)
mlq
1st
t(261.84) = 1.07, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.89)
2st
t(321.69) = 0.34, p = 0.734, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.77)
empower
1st
t(247.62) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.87)
2st
t(321.26) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.81)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(268.29) = 0.07, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.71)
2st
t(321.08) = 1.34, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.48)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(269.77) = -0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.57)
2st
t(320.94) = -1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.40)
sss_affective
1st
t(239.50) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.15)
2st
t(317.43) = -1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.42)
sss_behavior
1st
t(243.02) = -0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.74)
2st
t(319.64) = -1.09, p = 0.278, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.83 to 0.53)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(246.17) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.24)
2st
t(320.87) = -0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.63 to 0.74)
sss
1st
t(235.89) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.61 to 2.95)
2st
t(313.90) = -1.07, p = 0.283, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-4.97 to 1.46)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(158.13) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.64)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(138.61) = 1.83, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.30)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(129.60) = 4.08, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (1.15 to 3.33)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(135.84) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(132.63) = 3.03, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.75)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(131.23) = 3.01, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.51)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(141.83) = 3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.49 to 1.65)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(124.03) = -3.42, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.31 to -1.15)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(129.74) = 1.20, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.51)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(130.62) = 1.00, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.76)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(128.71) = 2.66, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.47 to 3.21)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(125.42) = 1.64, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.23)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(129.76) = 1.75, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.23)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(127.35) = 1.64, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.37)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(134.56) = 3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.73 to 2.68)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(132.63) = 1.16, p = 0.494, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.95)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(133.43) = 2.39, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.48)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(129.36) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.38)
els
1st vs 2st
t(128.32) = 2.64, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.65)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(126.90) = -3.97, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-5.14 to -1.72)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(126.09) = 2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.97)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(129.78) = 2.21, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.71)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(126.61) = 2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.36 to 3.55)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(158.20) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.44)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(142.47) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.82 to 0.86)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(136.67) = 1.72, p = 0.174, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.78)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(139.46) = 1.05, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.48)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(131.03) = 1.48, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.59)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(143.49) = 2.89, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.53)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(144.44) = -2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.63 to -0.11)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(126.43) = -3.61, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-1.89 to -0.55)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(128.40) = -2.32, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.54 to -0.12)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(130.20) = -2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.29)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(124.42) = -3.31, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-4.76 to -1.20)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(147.73) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.39)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(132.81) = -0.87, p = 0.770, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.35)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(125.80) = 1.12, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.57)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(130.67) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.44)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(128.17) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.81)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(127.08) = 1.31, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.92)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(135.29) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.45)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(121.43) = -1.65, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.67 to 0.24)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(125.91) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.94)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(126.60) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.01)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(125.11) = 1.32, p = 0.378, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.10)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(122.52) = 1.12, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.97)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(125.93) = 1.42, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.87)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(124.04) = 1.59, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.15)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(129.67) = 1.44, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.55)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(128.17) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.36)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(128.80) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.83)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(125.62) = 0.76, p = 0.899, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.82)
els
1st vs 2st
t(124.80) = 0.87, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.51)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(123.68) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.91)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(123.05) = 1.28, p = 0.405, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.37)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(125.94) = 1.56, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.33)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(123.46) = 1.51, p = 0.265, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.59)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(147.78) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.38)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(135.79) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.47)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(131.31) = 1.75, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.66)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(133.47) = 1.94, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.03 to 2.97)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(126.92) = 2.34, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.83)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(136.57) = 1.15, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.91)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(137.30) = -1.30, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.24)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(123.31) = -1.03, p = 0.614, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.30)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(124.87) = -1.30, p = 0.390, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.22)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(126.27) = -0.93, p = 0.706, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.36)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(121.73) = -1.28, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.58)
Plot
